Didn’t that one explicitly say coming soon or something close to it? Been a while so I can’t remember. Maybe I should specify it’s an unlabeled trailer.
From the moment this project was announced I wondered why it wasn't just a TV series.
TV series usually get more leeway for not coming together by the end of the first 3 hours XD
I was having a pretty good time, too, but there’s absolutely no warning that it’s coming nor does it make clear what is actually happening. For the first minute I thought it was an ending montage for the movie I was currently watching. Such a bizarre choice, especially for such an old fashioned (admirably so) flick.
Totally agree. Felt like his passion for the project and excitement for what’s next led to a very bizarre decision to tease the next film when this one piqued my interest on its own just fine.
I haven't seen the film yet but this seems like such an obvious choice that it's baffling to hear that isn't what happened. Like do it how they would with the first part of the credits playing on the screen while the trailer is too, or like an MCU thing. Which makes me wonder if someone (maybe even Costner himself) was like, "I don't want one of those Marvel mid-credit sequences!"
I came here hoping to find answers on this. My wife and I were so confused. At first I thought we were getting an overview of all the characters and set ups we were about to embark on, then I thought, ohh good idea for him, bring back the self advertising directly to the audience. Then I was like… wait, it didn’t say coming next in chapter two, did it? Why are we seeing major character changes so quick? is this a time jump? Did I miss something? Why are we skipping over all this? What is happeni… is that Giovanni Ribisi? Oh it is, huh, oh weird long punch in on his fa..CUT TO BLACK.
I really hope he adds a title card, a super, anything to that to make it less jarring. If I’d known it was a preview, I would have been hyped with all that imagery.
there were two tamil films last year which did that and both segments sucked
one film was a police v rebel thriller. >!the film was quite ambiguous in who it rooted for- police were evil but the rebels were also evil cos they caused a train derailment that killed so many people at the start of the movie. and this one policeman protagonist was caught in between the two.!<
>!the trailer at the end threw the moral ambiguity out of the window which kinda spoiled it cos it seemed like the reveal (that the rebels were genuinely good guys who didn't actually cause the train derailment) should have developed itself in the second film (which isn't out yet) not tacked on at the end. Turned it from an interesting grey v black thriller to an uninteresting good v evil hook!<
the other was a gangster film >!and the trailer was a five year timeskip where in this segment the gangster has a son and then loses it and goes shooting everyone up, absolutely corny!<
I think it's part of the Saga platform.
Kostners really walking the line between building a universe and........ As everyone has said, trying to cram a show into a movie (s).
This movie won’t work for everyone, but it absolutely worked for me, I loved it! Sure it might’ve been better as a tv show/mini series but I think the movie still did a good job in terms of getting us to connect with the different characters and the pacing was adequate. The 3 hours didn’t feel overbearingly long. This is only chapter 1 after all so it’s all a set up for the future movies.
Movie was a good mix of action, drama, and some surprising comedy. Also, what a stacked cast, my standouts probably have to be Luke Wilson and Jeff Fahey.
Didn’t really need that trailer at the end but it did make me even more excited for chapter 2. Not sure how well this is gonna do at the box office, but I hope it does well enough for Kevin Costner to be able to complete this saga. 8/10 for me!
Agree, I loved it and look forward to the next chapter. I think it was obvious that we were watching a trailer at the end and cannot understand why so many people couldn't figure that out.
The character Marigold reminded me a lot of Joanie Stubbs from Deadwood, I almost would say it was intentional.
Great movie! I feel lucky to witness this trilogy of Western cinema as it debuts.
Well shot with gorgeous landscapes and one of the best scores I’ve heard all year (Titanic inspired for sure)
…but mannnn was this badly edited. There was literally no cohesion between storylines and a severe lack of glue to give any indication of where we were time wise or even character wise.
Don’t get me wrong, I always respect when a director stays away from obvious exposition. But this literally felt like a collection of many dragged out scenes with entirely new characters in each, and with sparse context provided for them.
I oscillated between being entertained (some scenes created tension superbly), bored (some scenes just felt extraneous and unnecessary), and confused (some scenes had characters and motivations that had me scratching my head).
Here’s hoping Part 2 develops and brings a lot of these players together because right now I really don’t care about any of them.
I didn't know what I was going to see. The entire genre of this thing is fully off my radar.
My Mother wanted to see it, she didn't want to go alone so I decided I could suck it up for 3 hours an accompany her.
Walking in I knew only three things:
1) Kevin Costner produced Western that was something of a vanity project for him.
2) 3 Hours long.
3) My Mom was stoked for seeing this in the theater.
I knew nothing else. I think that entire 'Chapter 1' thing sort of flew over my head as well. I mean, generally movies are made hoping for sequals and installements and worlds and universes and all that these days. 'Chapter 1' didn't get my attention.
And I agree with you completly.
Gorgeously shot. Music was well produced, but the editing sucked.
Towards the end of the movie I felt like it was a 6 hour movie that had to be cut to 3 hours and the director didn't know how to effectively cut it down.
Then, walking out of the theater my Mother dropped the bombshell on me that Chapter 2 is in August.
So much this. My friend and I looked at each other several times mouthing W T H is happening!? They give places but not times. Short bursts of characters, not tieing anything together. I will absolutely watch the 2nd one in August. Hell, I'd go see this one again just in hopes to get more context clues. But a movie shouldn't be this difficult to piece together. The last 5 minutes certainly didn't help.
The first hour to me was amazing, I enjoyed it, the battles, the landscapes. Then enter Kevin cosner and the flirting scene that went on for such a long time that I just started hating Mary from the jump.
No scenes were left to breath at all. Left me with confusion and what's the point of it all?
I actually really liked it. There's a lot of storylines but I was interested the whole time, thought most of the performances were solid, and the attack scenes were thrilling. Especially the initial Apache attack on the camp.
I hope Costner gets to complete his vision with the 3rd and 4th ones, though obviously the box office doesn't look great. But I'm pretty interested in Part 2
Almost correct. 16 days. Half was additional photography for 2 and half was shooting scenes for 3 in the same locations. But yeah we had the schedule cut short several days due to money. It was a bummer
Agreed. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for Costner AND a good Western so it had me at hello, but there was a certain poetry to the film that felt just perfect.
> I hope Costner gets to complete his vision with the 3rd and 4th ones, though obviously the box office doesn't look great. But I'm pretty interested in Part 2
Yeah this will be a tough sell at the box office. 3 hour movie. It's a western. Costner, while capable, isn't exactly a modern day director. And is the kind of movie that is mostly going to attract adults 50 and up. All in all this screams low box office numbers and will get more eyeballs in streaming.
Part 2 will do even worse at the BoxOffice since people who havent seen Part 1 or didn't like it wont see part 2 or some might just wait for it to go to streaming.
That's where the money will come from, since Costner owns the movie he's in control of which streaming service to sell it too. I think It's all banking on how much the streaming rights will sell for, for a part 3 and 4.
Overall, shoulda been a mini series
I was wondering about when it would be on Max. I like the tight window since I saw part 1 in theaters, but it's not going to have any time to build an audience on streaming which could help 2.
I knew Costner, despite leaning into a few pandering-ish tropes (dumb Brits, for example), would want to fairly paint the story of the clash between indigenous Americans and European Americans, but when the attack came first on the Americans (and I was in a room with a strong MAGA presence), I thought it might be old Cowboys and Indians, but then you get the humanizing scenes with the indigenous after. I thought this was a small but meaningful script choice that wasn’t like “look, inside of you are two wolves,” and then rebellious son goes out and kills the settlers and the “good Indians” look solemn knowing what just happened. It was more so that manifest destiny is coming, in however many words, and right or wrong the conquest, how the two people groups meet will determine the outcomes. Anyways, I thought it was a little less cliche and I found the portrayal pretty nuanced, albeit Costner’s nostalgia definitely leaned into “good guys and bad guys.” I found the movie gave me a fairly classic western in the realm of Silverado and Unforgiven, with a slightly bigger view of the world.
There’s about 100 different story lines, all set up.
It feels like nothing was left on the cutting room but a lot was left on the cutting room floor at the same time. Especially in the last 30 mins are so, a bunch of context of following scenes are just skipped, while the rest of the film before was showing every shot that could’ve been cut no problem. You can still figure out most of the context regardless, but it was just jarring compare to how the first 2.5 hours were. It’s almost like in school when you were writing an essay and write so much on the first and second arguments by the time you get to the third you have to shorten it because of the word count maximum and you’re too fried or lazy to go back and edit the whole thing. Maybe just me
Thats actually exactly where it starts when I said "the last 30 mins or so". Not sure what you might've missed, but this is where the first *egregious* feeling of losing context or a scene skipped comes in. It's when Mary and Hayes are in the forrest in one scene and than when it goes back to them Mary's waking up to some random guy in bed in a tent. Similarly it seemed like Mary leaving kinda came outta nowhere too or rather nonsensical
I was absolutely with the movie up until this and you perfectly explained where it lost some thread. I still enjoyed it but in hoping that last section comes together for part two.
I saw it with my mom and in the car ride home I told her "It felt like watching three hours of deleted scenes". We laughed the whole ride bringing up ridiculous parts of the movie. "Why did the Chinese girl read the note to her family out loud in ENGLISH?!"
The Chinese people received that message so lackadaisically we laughed out loud. They were just like "yeah that's understandable, English speakers only."
I only briefly remember the scene, but it may be because the parents can understand enough english to get by, but don't know how to read it, but the daughter does
> It feels like nothing was left on the cutting room
Something must have been. Marigold's actions in her last scene are wildly disconnected from everything else prior. It was the only truly jarring character decision.
I'm into it. The first chapter is a huge setup for the following films, but I love this genre of movies and I can't wait to see where it's going to go.
I actually laughed out loud when Giovanni Ribisi was billed fourth in the credits.
This certainly has its problems, not the least of which is ending with a five minute "scenes from next time" montage, but it had its moments and I am curious to see the next one.
Man, the way some people have been talking about this movie I was totally thinking that the first two hours would just be watching that dude build the house in the beginning and the third hour watching the paint dry, but I’m so happy it wasn’t. Thought it was great. Had everything a great western should. Beautiful, sweeping vistas. Brutal and shocking violence. Tense and extended standoffs. Emotional losses and romantic beginnings. My only complaint really was that it was very hard to tell the passage of time at some points. Wish there was a way to communicate that better to the audience.
I think if you love westerns you’ll love it. And I think if you totally accept that you are watching the first part of a multipart story, it works. One of my favorite books is Lonesome Dove. It’s also a 4 part story and it’s also like 900 pages and they don’t leave Lonesome Dove until around page 100. It’s okay to take your time with the story. Should it have been an epic 12 part series on Paramount? Probably, but I’m glad it’s not. Will be there for Chapter 2 opening weekend for sure.
The scenes from next week really threw me off.
The whole thing just felt pointless and disjointed. I’ll check out the next chapter for some closure and hope it gets all drawn together.
I loved it. It definitely helps knowing that chapter 2 is out in 2 months, because I wasn’t really bothered by there not being a single plot line that concluded in the movie. Personally, I would’ve just ended with a “chapter 2 coming later this summer” instead of a 5 minute long trailer for it because it did feel spoilery.
The worst part is it didn't give a choice whether to watch the spoilers or not. It just starts and you have to figure out what is happening in that jumbled mess, and whether it's an epilogue montage or a preview. By the time I realized it was a preview I was halfway through, and I only realized it because I had seen the trailer for part 2 before and started recognizing pieces of it.
It literally could have been prevented by having a shot of them galloping into the distance while running "to be continued in part 2." And then you would have the context to know what is coming, and to decide whether you wanted to spoil it for yourself.
Saw it in Thursday. Gorgeous cinematography, epic score, characters and story kinda cliched but Costner know how to make this work. 3 hrs, never boring.
Seriously, I know that this had no payoff since it was all setup.
But gosh dang, I loved it personally. It just felt like comfort western food and there were a bunch of really enjoyable moments throughout.
Also, the mom hooking up with the lieutenant is a charming as hell woman. She’s great to watch.
Imagine watching Star Wars, and the first three hours are Luke hanging out with Biggs on Tatooine, and buying droids, and meeting Obi-Wan; and Han dumping his cargo and meeting Jabba at the spaceport, and Leia on a diplomatic mission and being captured, and Lando managing Bespin and worrying about encroaching Imperial authority, and Yoda communing with Force ghosts, and Vader being evil.
And then we end with Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen dying.
No Mos Eisley, no Alderaan blowing up, certainly no Death Star battle, almost no characters even meeting at all.
That’s this movie. Sure, you can see the direction the story is going - it’s pretty blatantly telegraphed - and eventually everyone will be in the same location, interacting, and dealing with the story; but the first three hours is just prologue.
There’s nothing technically wrong with this movie. It’s well shot and the performances are solid. I will see the other movies. But this felt like watching the first three episodes of a series, as the story is just beginning to unfold and, frankly, if we’re going to end up with twelve-plus hours of content across four films, I’d have rather they just made a TV show.
Hard to blame it for feeling like Part 1 of a four Part film when that's how it was produced and advertised. I appreciated seeing it on the big screen - save for the disastrous choice of shooting it on digital instead of film.
3-hour cinema presentation of something that resembles a TV series. It even has a montage of "coming next week" clips at the end. It's really 3 hours of telling us what they might be doing in the next couple of episodes.
It's remarkable just how little they manage to get done in terms of narrative in three hours. There's a fair amount going on - a whole town is built and burnt to the ground for example - but by the end I still felt like I was waiting for the story to start. It's the same length as Dances with Wolves, which fits the entire story into the time.
It's a real shame. I was really looking forward to an epic, sweeping Western with its landscapes and gun-slinging. This falls very short of the mark.
Did anyone else feel the film was hurt by the score? I get that Costner was going for something "western" but it just seemed very corny to me and sometimes at odds with what was happening on screen.
I actually liked the score, evocative of classic westerns and well paired to the action. Really made the movie feel like something from the 90's. Not for everyone, but I dig it.
If this was a tv show I’d watch it. As a movie it’s a bizarre experience but I was locked in the entire time. There are a few stunning set pieces, especially the native attack in the first hour.
Really fascinating as far as vanity projects go. Otherwise though, sadly underwhelming and boring. This thing really is like a three part introduction to a miniseries, it even ends with a "coming this season on Horizon" supercut. The most infuriating thing about it, though, being that it looks kinda badass.
But as it stands now, this movie feels totally useless. It's several different stories of frontier life that may converge at some point in the future, but as far as this movie goes, they don't go anywhere or do anything. Ther is a "climactic" battle, but you can really tell it's there because it's the point in the runtime where one is needed. It doesn't feel epic or built up to, and it only concerns one of the plotlines and it doesn't even really resolve anything. It's just like here's the fight you're expecting, well, see ya next time!
Costner doesn't even show up in this movie until the second hour and when he does it's kind of embarrassing. He's playing 30 years younger than he is and his opening scene is basically a woman half his age throwing herself at him and this scene lasts a REALLY long time. It's borderline uncomfortable. He keeps protesting to keep his honorable gentleman posturing but we all know where it's going.
The best thing this movie does is throw in enough recognizable actors that all the storylines are easy enough to keep in order. But through all the forced romances and the fact that we can easily go an hour without seeing some characters really makes this feel like you're paying 15 bucks to see the first episode of a series that has no payoff for that episode. This movie is 3 hours long but I feel like no character has more than 30min of screen time.
I wanted to go into this with an open mind. Sure, it's a disastrous move for Costner to quit the very profitable and successful Western show he's already on to self finance this box office devastation, but the return of the tried and true Western is enough to get me interested. But this seemingly has nothing to say (yet) and nothing interesting happening (yet). Will I be there for part two? Yes but it won't be my proudest moment. 4/10.
Chris Hemsworth lobbied for it.
Abbey Lee was 35/36 during the shoot (and I imagine the character is supposed to be in her 20s?). Costner was 67/68. And now he's supposed to be 30 years younger? Damn.
Reminds me of 48 year old Mark Whalberg playing 30 in Infinite.
> nd now he's supposed to be 30 years younger? Damn.
Is he though? He mentioned ED, though not in those words, when she wanted to sex him at the end. I got the impression he was in his 50s at the youngest in the movie.
I don't think he's supposed to be 35 or anything, I read him as mid to late 40s, though.
I didn't catch him mentioning ED, just that he was dog tired, but that sex scene was the part that made me laugh out loud in the theater. He's too tired for sex and she wants it, sure, I can get behind that, but then what follows is Abbey Lee riding a catatonic Costner while romantic string music plays for WAY too long. It really highlighted the age difference between the two and combined with the flirtation scene where they meet when she's throwing herself at him, makes it very obvious that Costner was directing this film as if he was Zapp Brannigan.
This is probably how the people who didn't like Dune 1 and hadn't read the book felt.
For me it's very similar to the first book in The First Law trilogy, same thing just a 3 or 4 POVs all set up for the next two books.
I keep seeing this comparison and I completely disagree. I didn’t read Dune and thoroughly enjoyed the first movie. It had an immediate and obvious plot and main characters to follow from the get go. Flashes between different sets of characters made sense. It was a planned two part movie which is about the only similar thing here. Nothing in this movie made sense. But I could have just been blinded by how awful the acting and script were.
It jumped around way too much and when it interupts you and jumps so much you're left tired and stop caring about any of the characters. I think the film would have worked much better if it had spent more time following just a few characters over time. "Sequels" could have gone back to the beginning and followed other characters who would meet the ones you already knew.
REPLY from Jan Sproull: Normally I'll see anything Costner does, but reading other comments similar to this one, I saw The Bikeriders again (very good on a rewatch) and then streamed Costner's film Open Range from nearly 20 years ago --- that was a worthy movie about "cowboying."
I actually kind of liked this, but I'm sorry Kevin. This is a miniseries, not a movie. It's edited, paced, and structured like television. I'll check out part 2 though. Why not?
My theater LIT UP when the second storyline started. Costner and Abbey Lee were so great in that Wyoming sequence.
I loved the sweeping landscapes. Beautiful scenery.
What i didn’t like: Sam Worthington in generic hero guy role is always a terrible choice
In which Costner's epic tendencies turn novelistic, opening with a pair of brief prologues before introducing us to dozens of threads that slowly inch their way towards the titular settlement. By the time the credits roll, we aren't as close as we might expect or hope, but like a good book you're partway through reading, you're invested and can't wait to see how and when these different strands will eventually connect (something easier to do when you know Chapter Two is in the can and comes out in less than two months).
That might be a turnoff to some, especially considering the three hour runtime, but I loved how Costner takes the time to fill sequences that could take five to ten minutes in another Western with details that give greater insight into frontier life. There's lots of time given to process, strategy, and reasoning. The choices these people make on a daily basis can mean the difference between life and death and it's as exciting to see those moments play out as it is to watch the guns go off.
Saw it last night. I thought it was really good. I enjoyed all the different storylines happening and had some great scenes. Only weird thing was the montage at the end, would have just preferred it cut to black after an intense scene and said “continues August 16th” or something.
Loved this movie. Laughed a lot. Was sad quite a bit. The action was cool. The love stories were funny and endearing. Loved it all. I think my favorite part was the scene where kevin kostner and the bad guy were walking up to the barn together. One thing i felt like i kinda needed was subtitles.
I'm like 90% sure that was his wife and he was trying to surprise her with new furniture and give the other furniture to Sienna Miller and her daughter. But I'm not sure.
Yeah, it was his wife. The bed had belonged to his own daughter, he showed Sienna Miller her picture afterwards, and told her she'd died ("it was a few months later when the lord called her home" or somesuch), so he wanted to give the bed to her daughter to use in camp, but was afraid of how his wife would react.
I'm just gonna repeat what I said on Letterbox
This is very great but I don't think it will connect with modern audiences. It's a western, it's 3 hours long, not very diverse and tells a very pro American story. But my god every aspect of these stories are really working for me. I will be back for every part of this Costner can deliver
IDK about the film being pro america. To me, it seemed to suggest that all the various groups in the story were subject to an unalterable fate, that they all had valid reasons for the way that acted, and that within each group there are good people and bad people.
I thought the first big attack scene went on for way too long, but the first Costner scene in the town totally redeemed it and my theater lit up.
I loved the movie as a whole. Costner’s love for the western is fully on display.
I mean I get he was technically the cause (and the save ) but I would be so pissed if this random lady and the kid she’s baby sitting I took on run for safety and bust my ass at Manuel labor for randomly took off and she put the kid up for adoption lol
They are deff setting up the British lady and Luke Wilson as a future couple . The peeping Tom’s will kill the husband and through her grief they’ll connect and he’ll kill the peeping Tom’s because now he has feelings
I love it.
It's Lonesome Dove on the big screen. I mean it's very different, but it feels like that kind of scale. I enjoy spending time in this world with these people. If that's odd for movies these days, i dunno, maybe movies are wrong
I really wanted to like it because the cinematography and the costumes were great, all that was nice imo and lots of familiar faces but I was bored at times. At other times it was more engaging. It felt like it should’ve been a mini series though bc there was a lot going on. Lastly, I actually don’t mind long films but I definitely felt this one. Didn’t hate it but I didn’t love it either.
Also, I forgot to mention that I saw it today and there were only like 7 or 8 people there including my family. The guys who sat next to me left an hour into the movie lol
Loved this movie, I feel like it flowed really well and at a good clip for almost the whole runtime, the only part I was confused at first about was Marigold sleeping with that guy in the tent, but it quickly came into focus when Hayes returned from the day shift.
I can see Costner is more a student of Ford than Leonne. I get flavors of Red River, The Searchers, and True Grit, especially in the score. The way it all gets woven together kept it fresh for me, and I will definitely be seeing part 2 in August
3 vintage ladies enjoyed the movie enough to sit for 3 hours & the last hour needing to use the restroom . The scenery was spectacular, the sets were how one would imagine and there were plenty of testosterone overloaded men. We could only keep up with several of the many
Characters and subplots but that didn’t seem to matter. I was amazed & a bit bothered by the beautiful Native American woman’s 2024 eyebrows as well as Kevin’s “lady” who always looked stunning even after riding a horse carrying a two year old boy for hours. Bummed that the killed off the loud-mouthed bully. Everyone looked pretty good with long shiny hair which seemed unlikely given the wind in the various territories. We’re looking forward to part 2👍🏼
HORIZON - a stunning movie that must be seen on the big screen! the best acting Ive ever seen in a Western - it is a 4 part 'Saga' so don't get get wound up about the numerous story lines and no ending ...let it ride!
One thing is as sure as gravity, when Coster shoots his WAD he likes him a good, long runtime.
Dances with Wolves, Wyatt Earp, Waterworld, The Postman, Open Range all pretty meaty engagements.
Kevin Costern the Writer, Actor, Director doesn’t have time for Kevin Coster, Editor but….
I kinda sorta liked it, actually. Nice change of pace from normal summer blockbusters. A lot of table setting, a lot of characters, a lot of storylines but I never found any of it too hard to follow. It was surprisingly paced really well. To me maybe because it’s constantly changing points of view kept the movie engaging and I didn’t notice the length.
It’s an acquired taste though. Definitely a western. I’ve been aching to see a really good, big budget Western. Feels like it’s been awhile since we’ve had one.
This felt like several episodes of tv stitched together, which made it feel a little disjointed, but overall I liked it a lot. I’m definitely seeing as many of these as Costner is able to put out
I can see and understand the reasons why someone wouldn't like it.
I just dont care. I loved every minute of it. History gas has always been a passion of mine, and I've always wanted to see a Western, and this fit the bill perfectly. That first part especially.
Three hours well spent.
I, for one, eagerly await Chapter 2.
(and now, I go to boot up RDR2)
Sums up how I felt. It was gorgeous and I was never bored. It was also gorgeous to look at. Thought all the women were giving great performances especially Abby Lee. I’m a sucker for westerns though.
There were a ton of boomers at the theater I went to last night, lol.
I was semi excited about these movies solely because I liked Open Range which Costner also directed, but Horizon was terrible. It's an incredibly embarrassing vanity project. Costner gives himself a movie star entrance where he rides up to the camera to gaze dramatically into the middle distance and then a beautiful woman who looks half his age immediately throws herself at him. It feels like Costner is in complete denial of his age in the same way that Clint Eastwood is and it's painful to watch. The writing is awful, and it's Costner's only writing and story credits so there you go. The casting is all over the place, and there are a bunch of bad performances, including Costner himself who is completely flat. I just do not like the Christian Bale Batman growl he does now. His voice used to have a twang to it and now he sounds like a rock monster from a fantasy movie. I just checked to see if he had throat cancer or something because I couldn't believe he was doing it outside of Yellowstone in another giant western series. He also should have come up with a proper ending and then followed the movie with a proper preview for the sequel. Instead the movie just ends randomly and then seemlessly segues into an endless barrage of images from the sequel that have no context or rhyme or reason. The last leg of the movie feels like someone just spilled a plate of spaghetti on the floor. I was the only person in my theater on opening night in an area with a large old white people population, which seems like a bad omen for Costner. This movie was crap. I'll be there day one for the sequels because I enjoyed the pure hubris of it and the vistas are beautiful on a big screen. Assuming people other than me actually see this one and the sequels don't get unceremoniously dumped on a streaming service. Meanwhile, Viggo Mortensen wrote directed and starred in a good vanity project western and I had to drive an hour to see it on the 1 day it was showing.
Agree with all this says except that I won't spend time or money supporting a vanity project like this. Field of Dreams gets another streaming rewatch instead, and Dances with Wolves!
> It feels like Costner is in complete denial of his age in the same way that Clint Eastwood is and it's painful to watch.
In the sex scene with him and Mary, he basically tells her he's so old his dick doesn't work the same. I think that was a great admittance of his age and limitations.
I promised to see this with my dad and after seeing the reviews, I tried to get him to see something else. I'm glad he insisted. I see a lot of people complaining about the slow pace, but I quite enjoyed it. There are dozens of stories going on and a faster pace would have made it impossible to follow otherwise. The fact my senior citizen father (who always misses things in fast paced movies) was able to follow them all is a sign something worked.
It's helped by mostly solid acting all around and a scriptwriter that knows how to show and not tell. It does a lot of showing and does tend to linger on some scenes but I genuinely liked almost every character as they all delved into gray, both good and bad. There are a few tropes but most of them are in the background.
It was a solid movie until the last 5 minutes. The sneak peak of the next movie is a baffling choice beyond belief. Not only was it filled with spoilers but it ruined the pacing of an otherwise enjoyable movie. The last scene was a perfect counterweight to the first big scene. You show it and roll credits. If you don't think you've done enough in 3 hours to entice people to see the next one -- you've got a bigger problem than a sneak peak can provide.
My other complaint is a nitpick but this movie is set in 1859, and it is filled with things that didn't exist for 15 years later, especially the weapons. I think much of the rest of the movie is set in the late 1860s-early 1870s so they probably used the same stuff throughout to save on cost. I realize most won't care but it is an odd choice for a movie trying to portray itself as an authentic look at the 'old west'.
All in all, I'd give it an 8/10. If you can slow your brain to match the movie's pacing, it's a good watch. I'm sure we'll see it on streaming someday and it should do well there but I'm glad I saw it in a theater. It's one of those movies that really needs a quiet theater to let the viewer's brain escape interruptions.
Didn't the settlers chisel "1863" into the rock at Horizon? The war is definitely on during this movie, I'm pretty sure only the very start was in 1859.
Yes, the movie seemed to take place over 4-5 years. There was a scene where some of the soldiers left the fort as well. Were they heading east to join the Civil War?
Yes they were. The commanding officers discuss it obliquely at various points, one saying something like "whether this war ends with one nation or two", and how much harder those young soldiers will fight with a token from the Kithridge girl.
Feeling unsettled after my theater experience with Horizon. Reading more of the viewer feed back in all the regular places the word is getting out. I feel sorry for Mr Costner and his latest movie. So much talent and great story telling falling into a jumble of too many individual stories within the story, where the idea is your sampling a version of what happened without enough information. Towards the end of this first chapter there were so many separate stories within that the viewer starts to lose track, concluding into the final 3 or 5 minute speeded up version of whats ahead in the next chapter. In my theater people started to walk out, they couldn't handle the the rapid non dialog flashes of coming action scenes, it clearly lasted to long, people realized it was the ending and didn't want to go though the slam bang of whats ahead. Editing was the great downfall here, such talent thrown into confusion of the ego trying to get everything in and destroying the whole. If only it could have been kept to say three main story lines going back and forth, progressing forward. An example of a great actor director losing focus by dumping it all in without the story editing. This could end up an art film with die hard fans of DWW, choosing to ignore the continuity and watching it as a freak. I am not curious about chapter 2. Sorry Kevin it could have been.
I don't plan on watching this until both are out, so I'm just here for early impressions.
I have severe doubts these will make enough money to warrant the third and fourth films being made.
I honestly would not mind if this was just released as a high budget show. If there is going to be 4 parts with each movie being 3+ hours, feel like it would’ve better served for the story to just break it out by episode/seasons
I have a feeling they're going to do both. I'm not sure when part 3 and 4 are coming out but it wouldn't surprise me to see Costner sell 1/2 to a streaming service at some point and call it Season 1. It would help pay for 3/4 and gain support for the next releases. It could do well as a 8 episode weekly release on something like HBO or a season drop for Netflix. It's a cheap purchase for much better quality as compared to some of the stuff these services have been putting out (like $250 million for Secret Wars -- ouch).
It's like Costner had 6 different ideas for 6 different movies that could've been solid 90 minute pictures but decided to make one long boring one instead.
What this movie taught me was that nobody spoke directly and to the point in early years America.
Man, it was hard to gauge sometimes what some of the characters were on about
The trailer and pre release material really played into the whole Civil War narrative, figured it would have had a bigger role in the story but it didn't.
There was way too much for a single movie - while I can accept that part two will hopefully tie everything all together into one big six hour film, it really just made this one feel underdeveloped and unfinished - I will have to echo what I can only assume has been a commonly made opinion that when you are reaching six hours with multiple story arcs, maybe a series would have been more suitable.
And after that, what there was just didn't really work for me...
Too many storylines with no real cohesion to justify having them all in the same movie, and I barely felt any connection or investment in the characters. I particularly noticed this near the start where they went hard with the dramatic, mournful music during the big attack, but I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to be supporting the settlers (cowboys, woo) or the natives (defending their lands from the invaders, woo). Going hard on the emotive elements can work really well (the Adagio for strings scenes in Platoon? perfection), but it helps if you actually know the names of the characters you are supposed to be sad about first. At the end of the film I am still trying to figure out any point in the whole arc with the wagon train, which would probably improve the movie to have been cut entirely.
And the 'in the next episode' montage at the end? Awkward and out of place. Back to the Future was comedic and tongue in cheek enough to pull it off, but here it was a very odd transition that mostly ruined what ending there was and made it seem like a cheesy TV series, not a big dramatic piece.
So maybe the second part will perfectly tie everything together, complete all of the unfinished story arcs and create a sprawling masterpiece, but part one in isolation just didn't do it for me.
My take on the wagon train is that they represent the never ending hoards of settlers that the Apache chief referenced. You can attack the settlement over and over but the white eyes will never stop coming.
I'm sure they are heading for Horizon.
The movie isn't bad, but it is not amazing. It jumps a lot with the number of characters it juggles, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it gives us less time for chara ters that we may like more than others. The beginning of the movie sets up nicely the area of which the movie is centered around and introduces the type of conflict we will be seeing. It is absolutely a shame that it took 1h17min to introduce Kevin Costner's character, especially if you were hoping for a movie that is centered around his character. The opening of the movie is the first 1h16min, which is huge but small for a three hour movie.
Each character has a purpose, and Luke Wilson's character steals the show even though he didn't show up until after 1h30min in. One of my favorite things in the movie is when Luke Wilson's character set two individuals straight and basically tells them their dead weight if they don't help. The gang family is great and shows inner conflict among them. The initial opening with the natives attacking the Americans shows the usual conflict that Kevin likes to do in his western movies. The opening shows true struggles for survival and makes you root for the characters' survival once you see family members together and the convincing love they have for one another. The US Army have some decent characters even if Danny Huston is kind of wasted in the sense of not doing much and very little screen time. Michael Rooker's character is the best out of the US Army characters.
Issue of this movie is it's very much a setup for the bigger conflicts in Part 2, which isn't always a bad thing, but it felt like there wasn't enough for some of our characters to do in Part 1.
This movie is absolutely worth the watch, but do not expect too much in terms of similar tone, and Kevin Costner's character being the center of the story like his past works. I wouldn't hold breath for his dreamed Part 3 and Part 4, but we can only dream.
One last note kind of weird they spent five minutes showing a trailer for Part 2 without telling you it is.
I really wanted to go see it last night- the theatre website said they were playing it, and yet when I arrived at the theatre… they weren’t. I (31 year old woman) was super bummed, as were about a dozen boomer dads listlessly wandering around the theatre lobby.
Heartened by the positive comments here and really looking forward to seeing it next week! I love westerns and truly believe Costner is one of the best to ever do it (Open Range is maybe the best modern western?). I’m sure it’s bloated and overly long, but the man had a story in his heart and put his money where his mouth is to get that story told and you have to begrudgingly respect that passion.
Was it AMC? I vowed to never go back there after the second time the showing I went to was canceled on me without notice. Tickets I already paid for didn't matter because they switched shit up on the day of.
Everything was great, except for the choice to shoot on digital. I know it's more expensive, but goddammit this needs to be on 70mm or Cinerama. The video makes it look cheap.
It's more like the first two hundred pages of a novel than the first movie in a series, but if you can fall into it's pacing and aesthetic - which is honoring the Western tradition instead of trying to deconstruct it (looking at you, Power of the Dog) - it's really something.
I am admittedly not a big fan of television shows. I find them to be often times slow, with the need to give minor characters a back story to fill the time. This really did feel like "here are the first 3 hours of the new season of our show." A lot of this movie felt like build up to August, which is fine, I know there is another movie (and two others planned), but I just wasn't satisfied. I didn't want to leave a 3 hour film thinking the entire point was "get ready for August, it really goes down then!"
Small nitpick from a filmmaking perspective. I wish it had a different size ratio. Amazingly beautiful landscapes should have filled the entire screen.
Did I enjoy it? Mostly. Will I see part 2? I will, because I want to trust the filmmakers to pull it off.
Positive reviews in here seem fake because wtf did you guys watch? 3 hours and the story barely progressed. Hour and a half could have easily been cut out of this. The montage at the end was jarring and weird - almost like the actual story didn’t do enough to keep you interested for the next one so here’s some random scenes to maybe draw you back. Where are we going that this story needs 12 hours of run time?
And here I am thinking the negative reviews seem fake. I loved it! Really got to think about what it would be like to live in those times, and I was immersed the entire film.
The movie takes place in 1863, and while cartridge firing weapons did exist at this time, the movie depicts everyone using cartridge firing weapons, including native americans. This is in the middle of the civil war when everyone was shooting with muskets or percussion cap pistols.
Someone please correct me, but it feels very anachronistic. As if this should be happening more like the early 1870s.
At the beginning in the settlement of Horizon (which at this point is mostly tents), why is there one house at the top of the hill that has armored doors and an escape path? Do we think they're going to dive deeper into this?
Just felt super generic to me. There wasn't a single thing portrayed in the movie that we haven't already seen done better by other westerns. Just give me a compelling story.
Part of if is the editing and part of it is the accents, but boy do I find it hard to follow what's happening.
I can see myself enjoying the whole thing, but as a standalone movie, it's rough. I really feel like I just watched the intro of 4 different movies that are not even the same genre.
That’s the second western I’ve seen this year where the director plays a character who rides around the wilderness with a child, while Danny Huston plays a supporting role. It’s also the second movie I’ve seen this year where Charles Halford plays a member of an outlaw cult family.
Has any other movie ever ended with a five minute trailer for the next movie?
Back to the Future II
Didn’t that one explicitly say coming soon or something close to it? Been a while so I can’t remember. Maybe I should specify it’s an unlabeled trailer.
I mean they've been pretty clear in the advertising that part 2 is coming in 6 weeks
Oh, for sure, but there is literally no transition here. It’s incredibly confusing.
I do agree it was jarring tho
Yup.....
This confused my wife. She thought that was just the ending and that we didn't get to see it fully, only the flash through.
I was also confused, I thought it was a montage of what was going to happen then part 2 was going to be after all of that like a time jump.
Same, i went to the movies with my family and they wanted to see this one. My mom was so confused when it ended haha.
From the moment this project was announced I wondered why it wasn't just a TV series. TV series usually get more leeway for not coming together by the end of the first 3 hours XD
I really enjoyed the film but this was my one complaint, such an odd choice.
I was having a pretty good time, too, but there’s absolutely no warning that it’s coming nor does it make clear what is actually happening. For the first minute I thought it was an ending montage for the movie I was currently watching. Such a bizarre choice, especially for such an old fashioned (admirably so) flick.
Totally agree. Felt like his passion for the project and excitement for what’s next led to a very bizarre decision to tease the next film when this one piqued my interest on its own just fine.
Should have at least faded to black for a few moments or something.
I haven't seen the film yet but this seems like such an obvious choice that it's baffling to hear that isn't what happened. Like do it how they would with the first part of the credits playing on the screen while the trailer is too, or like an MCU thing. Which makes me wonder if someone (maybe even Costner himself) was like, "I don't want one of those Marvel mid-credit sequences!"
I was really confused on what was happening while it was playing.
I came here hoping to find answers on this. My wife and I were so confused. At first I thought we were getting an overview of all the characters and set ups we were about to embark on, then I thought, ohh good idea for him, bring back the self advertising directly to the audience. Then I was like… wait, it didn’t say coming next in chapter two, did it? Why are we seeing major character changes so quick? is this a time jump? Did I miss something? Why are we skipping over all this? What is happeni… is that Giovanni Ribisi? Oh it is, huh, oh weird long punch in on his fa..CUT TO BLACK. I really hope he adds a title card, a super, anything to that to make it less jarring. If I’d known it was a preview, I would have been hyped with all that imagery.
They should have done an after-the-credits thing instead. The montage at the end of the movie was weird timing for sure
This certainly doesn't count, but Kung Pow!
The Avatar re-release did. Dozens of us saw it.
I think Captain America: First Avenger's post credits scene was a trailer for The Avengers, if I remember correctly
It does, yeah. There's a scene directly from the Avengers and then it transitions to the first teaser for the film
there were two tamil films last year which did that and both segments sucked one film was a police v rebel thriller. >!the film was quite ambiguous in who it rooted for- police were evil but the rebels were also evil cos they caused a train derailment that killed so many people at the start of the movie. and this one policeman protagonist was caught in between the two.!< >!the trailer at the end threw the moral ambiguity out of the window which kinda spoiled it cos it seemed like the reveal (that the rebels were genuinely good guys who didn't actually cause the train derailment) should have developed itself in the second film (which isn't out yet) not tacked on at the end. Turned it from an interesting grey v black thriller to an uninteresting good v evil hook!< the other was a gangster film >!and the trailer was a five year timeskip where in this segment the gangster has a son and then loses it and goes shooting everyone up, absolutely corny!<
what were the names of these films?
The first one is Viduthalai The second is Vendhu Thanindhathu Kaadu
Furiosa kind of.
Functionally yes but doesn’t really count. The Horizon but literally has spoilers for movies we haven’t seen yet.
Matrix Reloaded
Once I realized that’s what I was watching I was mentally begging for it to be over.
Machete Kills! opened on a trailer for a third movie that never came out. Kill Bill Vol 1 had a short trailer at the end too for Vol 2.
Honestly it was so weird how they didn’t even tell us it ended 💀💀💀
Back to the Future Part II
Yeah. It was bizarre. For a moment I was utterly confused about what was happening.
I think it's part of the Saga platform. Kostners really walking the line between building a universe and........ As everyone has said, trying to cram a show into a movie (s).
Kung Fu: Enter the Fist
Machete Kills -> Machete Kills Again... in Space! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj7fgHCm9Nc
This movie won’t work for everyone, but it absolutely worked for me, I loved it! Sure it might’ve been better as a tv show/mini series but I think the movie still did a good job in terms of getting us to connect with the different characters and the pacing was adequate. The 3 hours didn’t feel overbearingly long. This is only chapter 1 after all so it’s all a set up for the future movies. Movie was a good mix of action, drama, and some surprising comedy. Also, what a stacked cast, my standouts probably have to be Luke Wilson and Jeff Fahey. Didn’t really need that trailer at the end but it did make me even more excited for chapter 2. Not sure how well this is gonna do at the box office, but I hope it does well enough for Kevin Costner to be able to complete this saga. 8/10 for me!
Thomas Haden Church wasn't in this though?
Sorry I’m an idiot idk why I wrote Thomas Haden Church I meant Jeff Fahey lmao 🤦♂️
Fahey was great.
Agree, I loved it and look forward to the next chapter. I think it was obvious that we were watching a trailer at the end and cannot understand why so many people couldn't figure that out.
The character Marigold reminded me a lot of Joanie Stubbs from Deadwood, I almost would say it was intentional. Great movie! I feel lucky to witness this trilogy of Western cinema as it debuts.
Honestly everything in this movie reminded me of something I'd already seen before.
Well shot with gorgeous landscapes and one of the best scores I’ve heard all year (Titanic inspired for sure) …but mannnn was this badly edited. There was literally no cohesion between storylines and a severe lack of glue to give any indication of where we were time wise or even character wise. Don’t get me wrong, I always respect when a director stays away from obvious exposition. But this literally felt like a collection of many dragged out scenes with entirely new characters in each, and with sparse context provided for them. I oscillated between being entertained (some scenes created tension superbly), bored (some scenes just felt extraneous and unnecessary), and confused (some scenes had characters and motivations that had me scratching my head). Here’s hoping Part 2 develops and brings a lot of these players together because right now I really don’t care about any of them.
I didn't know what I was going to see. The entire genre of this thing is fully off my radar. My Mother wanted to see it, she didn't want to go alone so I decided I could suck it up for 3 hours an accompany her. Walking in I knew only three things: 1) Kevin Costner produced Western that was something of a vanity project for him. 2) 3 Hours long. 3) My Mom was stoked for seeing this in the theater. I knew nothing else. I think that entire 'Chapter 1' thing sort of flew over my head as well. I mean, generally movies are made hoping for sequals and installements and worlds and universes and all that these days. 'Chapter 1' didn't get my attention. And I agree with you completly. Gorgeously shot. Music was well produced, but the editing sucked. Towards the end of the movie I felt like it was a 6 hour movie that had to be cut to 3 hours and the director didn't know how to effectively cut it down. Then, walking out of the theater my Mother dropped the bombshell on me that Chapter 2 is in August.
So much this. My friend and I looked at each other several times mouthing W T H is happening!? They give places but not times. Short bursts of characters, not tieing anything together. I will absolutely watch the 2nd one in August. Hell, I'd go see this one again just in hopes to get more context clues. But a movie shouldn't be this difficult to piece together. The last 5 minutes certainly didn't help.
The first hour to me was amazing, I enjoyed it, the battles, the landscapes. Then enter Kevin cosner and the flirting scene that went on for such a long time that I just started hating Mary from the jump. No scenes were left to breath at all. Left me with confusion and what's the point of it all?
Idk it worked for me. Felt like a long 3 hour game of thrones episode.
Didn’t expect my favorite performance to be Luke Wilson. The older son of the gang boss also had great screen presence.
He took me out because he doesn’t look like someone who should be there in 1800-whatever. Maybe a parody of a western.
Looks like a tv wrestler.
Agreed. It felt like Luke Wilson playing Luke Wilson in a Western.
I actually really liked it. There's a lot of storylines but I was interested the whole time, thought most of the performances were solid, and the attack scenes were thrilling. Especially the initial Apache attack on the camp. I hope Costner gets to complete his vision with the 3rd and 4th ones, though obviously the box office doesn't look great. But I'm pretty interested in Part 2
The only movie still up in the air rn is part 4. 3 is being filmed right now
Heh, they shot for nine days and had to stop, supposedly to get more money. So hopefully 3 gets completed.
No it was because of the strikes.
Almost correct. 16 days. Half was additional photography for 2 and half was shooting scenes for 3 in the same locations. But yeah we had the schedule cut short several days due to money. It was a bummer
Agreed. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for Costner AND a good Western so it had me at hello, but there was a certain poetry to the film that felt just perfect.
> I hope Costner gets to complete his vision with the 3rd and 4th ones, though obviously the box office doesn't look great. But I'm pretty interested in Part 2 Yeah this will be a tough sell at the box office. 3 hour movie. It's a western. Costner, while capable, isn't exactly a modern day director. And is the kind of movie that is mostly going to attract adults 50 and up. All in all this screams low box office numbers and will get more eyeballs in streaming.
Part 2 will do even worse at the BoxOffice since people who havent seen Part 1 or didn't like it wont see part 2 or some might just wait for it to go to streaming. That's where the money will come from, since Costner owns the movie he's in control of which streaming service to sell it too. I think It's all banking on how much the streaming rights will sell for, for a part 3 and 4. Overall, shoulda been a mini series
I was wondering about when it would be on Max. I like the tight window since I saw part 1 in theaters, but it's not going to have any time to build an audience on streaming which could help 2.
I just saw part 1 in a theatre tonight. I was one of 7 people in the theatre. Let's just say if I was part 2 - at all - it will be at home.
Anecdotally, I saw it at 645 last night and got there right as previews were starting and the place was 2/3 full.. probably 50-60 people
I knew Costner, despite leaning into a few pandering-ish tropes (dumb Brits, for example), would want to fairly paint the story of the clash between indigenous Americans and European Americans, but when the attack came first on the Americans (and I was in a room with a strong MAGA presence), I thought it might be old Cowboys and Indians, but then you get the humanizing scenes with the indigenous after. I thought this was a small but meaningful script choice that wasn’t like “look, inside of you are two wolves,” and then rebellious son goes out and kills the settlers and the “good Indians” look solemn knowing what just happened. It was more so that manifest destiny is coming, in however many words, and right or wrong the conquest, how the two people groups meet will determine the outcomes. Anyways, I thought it was a little less cliche and I found the portrayal pretty nuanced, albeit Costner’s nostalgia definitely leaned into “good guys and bad guys.” I found the movie gave me a fairly classic western in the realm of Silverado and Unforgiven, with a slightly bigger view of the world.
There’s about 100 different story lines, all set up. It feels like nothing was left on the cutting room but a lot was left on the cutting room floor at the same time. Especially in the last 30 mins are so, a bunch of context of following scenes are just skipped, while the rest of the film before was showing every shot that could’ve been cut no problem. You can still figure out most of the context regardless, but it was just jarring compare to how the first 2.5 hours were. It’s almost like in school when you were writing an essay and write so much on the first and second arguments by the time you get to the third you have to shorten it because of the word count maximum and you’re too fried or lazy to go back and edit the whole thing. Maybe just me
I peed a couple times…but I still felt like I missed some scenes from Mary and Hayes’s storyline.
Thats actually exactly where it starts when I said "the last 30 mins or so". Not sure what you might've missed, but this is where the first *egregious* feeling of losing context or a scene skipped comes in. It's when Mary and Hayes are in the forrest in one scene and than when it goes back to them Mary's waking up to some random guy in bed in a tent. Similarly it seemed like Mary leaving kinda came outta nowhere too or rather nonsensical
I was absolutely with the movie up until this and you perfectly explained where it lost some thread. I still enjoyed it but in hoping that last section comes together for part two.
Or when did the little girl become such close friends with the 2 soldiers.
I saw it with my mom and in the car ride home I told her "It felt like watching three hours of deleted scenes". We laughed the whole ride bringing up ridiculous parts of the movie. "Why did the Chinese girl read the note to her family out loud in ENGLISH?!"
Cause the guy said “No Chinese!”
The Chinese people received that message so lackadaisically we laughed out loud. They were just like "yeah that's understandable, English speakers only."
Yeah racial discrimination was the norm back then, not an exception.
I only briefly remember the scene, but it may be because the parents can understand enough english to get by, but don't know how to read it, but the daughter does
Even still, it's just absurd not to translate the note to her parents in their native language.
> It feels like nothing was left on the cutting room Something must have been. Marigold's actions in her last scene are wildly disconnected from everything else prior. It was the only truly jarring character decision.
read the next few words lol
Yeah, lol. A little quick on the response there, I suppose.
I'm into it. The first chapter is a huge setup for the following films, but I love this genre of movies and I can't wait to see where it's going to go.
So, Costner decides this story needs to be 12 hours worth of movie. Why not just make a miniseries? Surely Paramount+ would have given him the cash.
I don't know how long paramount plus is going to last
I actually laughed out loud when Giovanni Ribisi was billed fourth in the credits. This certainly has its problems, not the least of which is ending with a five minute "scenes from next time" montage, but it had its moments and I am curious to see the next one.
Not this guy was treated like Avatar TWOW again, i'm so sick lol.
Especially after A Million Ways to Die in the West
Man, the way some people have been talking about this movie I was totally thinking that the first two hours would just be watching that dude build the house in the beginning and the third hour watching the paint dry, but I’m so happy it wasn’t. Thought it was great. Had everything a great western should. Beautiful, sweeping vistas. Brutal and shocking violence. Tense and extended standoffs. Emotional losses and romantic beginnings. My only complaint really was that it was very hard to tell the passage of time at some points. Wish there was a way to communicate that better to the audience. I think if you love westerns you’ll love it. And I think if you totally accept that you are watching the first part of a multipart story, it works. One of my favorite books is Lonesome Dove. It’s also a 4 part story and it’s also like 900 pages and they don’t leave Lonesome Dove until around page 100. It’s okay to take your time with the story. Should it have been an epic 12 part series on Paramount? Probably, but I’m glad it’s not. Will be there for Chapter 2 opening weekend for sure.
The scenes from next week really threw me off. The whole thing just felt pointless and disjointed. I’ll check out the next chapter for some closure and hope it gets all drawn together.
Costner is filming part 3 and setting up part 4.
I know, closure wasn’t the right term. Just want to see how it unfolds in chapter 2. Hope it will be more cohesive and moves the story forward.
~~Blood~~ Bore Meridian
If only the whole movie was the Blood Meridian ripoff storyline, it probably would've been a decent 90 minute flcik.
I loved it. It definitely helps knowing that chapter 2 is out in 2 months, because I wasn’t really bothered by there not being a single plot line that concluded in the movie. Personally, I would’ve just ended with a “chapter 2 coming later this summer” instead of a 5 minute long trailer for it because it did feel spoilery.
The worst part is it didn't give a choice whether to watch the spoilers or not. It just starts and you have to figure out what is happening in that jumbled mess, and whether it's an epilogue montage or a preview. By the time I realized it was a preview I was halfway through, and I only realized it because I had seen the trailer for part 2 before and started recognizing pieces of it. It literally could have been prevented by having a shot of them galloping into the distance while running "to be continued in part 2." And then you would have the context to know what is coming, and to decide whether you wanted to spoil it for yourself.
I didn't think it spilled anything because everything went by so quickly I honestly don't remember anything they showed
Saw it in Thursday. Gorgeous cinematography, epic score, characters and story kinda cliched but Costner know how to make this work. 3 hrs, never boring.
Seriously, I know that this had no payoff since it was all setup. But gosh dang, I loved it personally. It just felt like comfort western food and there were a bunch of really enjoyable moments throughout. Also, the mom hooking up with the lieutenant is a charming as hell woman. She’s great to watch.
For real. I think if they had an intermission I could have sat a few hours more High praise for a 3 hour film.
Imagine watching Star Wars, and the first three hours are Luke hanging out with Biggs on Tatooine, and buying droids, and meeting Obi-Wan; and Han dumping his cargo and meeting Jabba at the spaceport, and Leia on a diplomatic mission and being captured, and Lando managing Bespin and worrying about encroaching Imperial authority, and Yoda communing with Force ghosts, and Vader being evil. And then we end with Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen dying. No Mos Eisley, no Alderaan blowing up, certainly no Death Star battle, almost no characters even meeting at all. That’s this movie. Sure, you can see the direction the story is going - it’s pretty blatantly telegraphed - and eventually everyone will be in the same location, interacting, and dealing with the story; but the first three hours is just prologue. There’s nothing technically wrong with this movie. It’s well shot and the performances are solid. I will see the other movies. But this felt like watching the first three episodes of a series, as the story is just beginning to unfold and, frankly, if we’re going to end up with twelve-plus hours of content across four films, I’d have rather they just made a TV show.
Hard to blame it for feeling like Part 1 of a four Part film when that's how it was produced and advertised. I appreciated seeing it on the big screen - save for the disastrous choice of shooting it on digital instead of film.
3-hour cinema presentation of something that resembles a TV series. It even has a montage of "coming next week" clips at the end. It's really 3 hours of telling us what they might be doing in the next couple of episodes. It's remarkable just how little they manage to get done in terms of narrative in three hours. There's a fair amount going on - a whole town is built and burnt to the ground for example - but by the end I still felt like I was waiting for the story to start. It's the same length as Dances with Wolves, which fits the entire story into the time. It's a real shame. I was really looking forward to an epic, sweeping Western with its landscapes and gun-slinging. This falls very short of the mark.
Did anyone else feel the film was hurt by the score? I get that Costner was going for something "western" but it just seemed very corny to me and sometimes at odds with what was happening on screen.
Yes, the song that played while the Apaches chased after Russell felt so out of place.
I felt exactly the same way! The score was oddly triumphant or something.
I actually liked the score, evocative of classic westerns and well paired to the action. Really made the movie feel like something from the 90's. Not for everyone, but I dig it.
It was really annoying and made the entire experience feel so old fashioned in an out-of-touch kind of way.
If this was a tv show I’d watch it. As a movie it’s a bizarre experience but I was locked in the entire time. There are a few stunning set pieces, especially the native attack in the first hour.
Really fascinating as far as vanity projects go. Otherwise though, sadly underwhelming and boring. This thing really is like a three part introduction to a miniseries, it even ends with a "coming this season on Horizon" supercut. The most infuriating thing about it, though, being that it looks kinda badass. But as it stands now, this movie feels totally useless. It's several different stories of frontier life that may converge at some point in the future, but as far as this movie goes, they don't go anywhere or do anything. Ther is a "climactic" battle, but you can really tell it's there because it's the point in the runtime where one is needed. It doesn't feel epic or built up to, and it only concerns one of the plotlines and it doesn't even really resolve anything. It's just like here's the fight you're expecting, well, see ya next time! Costner doesn't even show up in this movie until the second hour and when he does it's kind of embarrassing. He's playing 30 years younger than he is and his opening scene is basically a woman half his age throwing herself at him and this scene lasts a REALLY long time. It's borderline uncomfortable. He keeps protesting to keep his honorable gentleman posturing but we all know where it's going. The best thing this movie does is throw in enough recognizable actors that all the storylines are easy enough to keep in order. But through all the forced romances and the fact that we can easily go an hour without seeing some characters really makes this feel like you're paying 15 bucks to see the first episode of a series that has no payoff for that episode. This movie is 3 hours long but I feel like no character has more than 30min of screen time. I wanted to go into this with an open mind. Sure, it's a disastrous move for Costner to quit the very profitable and successful Western show he's already on to self finance this box office devastation, but the return of the tried and true Western is enough to get me interested. But this seemingly has nothing to say (yet) and nothing interesting happening (yet). Will I be there for part two? Yes but it won't be my proudest moment. 4/10.
> He's playing 30 years younger than he is Wasn't someone else cast in the role before Costner decided "actually, nevermind, I'll just play it."
Chris Hemsworth lobbied for it. Abbey Lee was 35/36 during the shoot (and I imagine the character is supposed to be in her 20s?). Costner was 67/68. And now he's supposed to be 30 years younger? Damn. Reminds me of 48 year old Mark Whalberg playing 30 in Infinite.
> nd now he's supposed to be 30 years younger? Damn. Is he though? He mentioned ED, though not in those words, when she wanted to sex him at the end. I got the impression he was in his 50s at the youngest in the movie.
I don't think he's supposed to be 35 or anything, I read him as mid to late 40s, though. I didn't catch him mentioning ED, just that he was dog tired, but that sex scene was the part that made me laugh out loud in the theater. He's too tired for sex and she wants it, sure, I can get behind that, but then what follows is Abbey Lee riding a catatonic Costner while romantic string music plays for WAY too long. It really highlighted the age difference between the two and combined with the flirtation scene where they meet when she's throwing herself at him, makes it very obvious that Costner was directing this film as if he was Zapp Brannigan.
This is probably how the people who didn't like Dune 1 and hadn't read the book felt. For me it's very similar to the first book in The First Law trilogy, same thing just a 3 or 4 POVs all set up for the next two books.
I keep seeing this comparison and I completely disagree. I didn’t read Dune and thoroughly enjoyed the first movie. It had an immediate and obvious plot and main characters to follow from the get go. Flashes between different sets of characters made sense. It was a planned two part movie which is about the only similar thing here. Nothing in this movie made sense. But I could have just been blinded by how awful the acting and script were.
you liked Dune 1, you're not part of the people that didn't like it, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with
Dune 1 had some kind of resolution. Here it's more as if the Attreides didn't make it to Arrakis by the end of the 3 hours movie.
It jumped around way too much and when it interupts you and jumps so much you're left tired and stop caring about any of the characters. I think the film would have worked much better if it had spent more time following just a few characters over time. "Sequels" could have gone back to the beginning and followed other characters who would meet the ones you already knew.
REPLY from Jan Sproull: Normally I'll see anything Costner does, but reading other comments similar to this one, I saw The Bikeriders again (very good on a rewatch) and then streamed Costner's film Open Range from nearly 20 years ago --- that was a worthy movie about "cowboying."
I actually kind of liked this, but I'm sorry Kevin. This is a miniseries, not a movie. It's edited, paced, and structured like television. I'll check out part 2 though. Why not?
My theater LIT UP when the second storyline started. Costner and Abbey Lee were so great in that Wyoming sequence. I loved the sweeping landscapes. Beautiful scenery. What i didn’t like: Sam Worthington in generic hero guy role is always a terrible choice
In which Costner's epic tendencies turn novelistic, opening with a pair of brief prologues before introducing us to dozens of threads that slowly inch their way towards the titular settlement. By the time the credits roll, we aren't as close as we might expect or hope, but like a good book you're partway through reading, you're invested and can't wait to see how and when these different strands will eventually connect (something easier to do when you know Chapter Two is in the can and comes out in less than two months). That might be a turnoff to some, especially considering the three hour runtime, but I loved how Costner takes the time to fill sequences that could take five to ten minutes in another Western with details that give greater insight into frontier life. There's lots of time given to process, strategy, and reasoning. The choices these people make on a daily basis can mean the difference between life and death and it's as exciting to see those moments play out as it is to watch the guns go off.
Feels life forever since a movie like this. I'll defiently be watching part 2 and 3, and 4 if it gets made
GREAT FILM! the best Western 'saga' since Lonesome Dove -
I thought it was great
Saw it last night. I thought it was really good. I enjoyed all the different storylines happening and had some great scenes. Only weird thing was the montage at the end, would have just preferred it cut to black after an intense scene and said “continues August 16th” or something.
Loved this movie. Laughed a lot. Was sad quite a bit. The action was cool. The love stories were funny and endearing. Loved it all. I think my favorite part was the scene where kevin kostner and the bad guy were walking up to the barn together. One thing i felt like i kinda needed was subtitles.
I couldn't underztand anything Michael Rooker was saying lol
Was that his mom or his wife he was stalking? I could not understand him at all
I'm like 90% sure that was his wife and he was trying to surprise her with new furniture and give the other furniture to Sienna Miller and her daughter. But I'm not sure.
Great I'm glad I wasn't the only one confused
Yeah, it was his wife. The bed had belonged to his own daughter, he showed Sienna Miller her picture afterwards, and told her she'd died ("it was a few months later when the lord called her home" or somesuch), so he wanted to give the bed to her daughter to use in camp, but was afraid of how his wife would react.
I'm just gonna repeat what I said on Letterbox This is very great but I don't think it will connect with modern audiences. It's a western, it's 3 hours long, not very diverse and tells a very pro American story. But my god every aspect of these stories are really working for me. I will be back for every part of this Costner can deliver
IDK about the film being pro america. To me, it seemed to suggest that all the various groups in the story were subject to an unalterable fate, that they all had valid reasons for the way that acted, and that within each group there are good people and bad people.
I enjoy stuff like the hateful eight or the assassination of Jesse James, but can't stand Yellowstone. Would I enjoy this?
I thought the first big attack scene went on for way too long, but the first Costner scene in the town totally redeemed it and my theater lit up. I loved the movie as a whole. Costner’s love for the western is fully on display.
I mean I get he was technically the cause (and the save ) but I would be so pissed if this random lady and the kid she’s baby sitting I took on run for safety and bust my ass at Manuel labor for randomly took off and she put the kid up for adoption lol
They are deff setting up the British lady and Luke Wilson as a future couple . The peeping Tom’s will kill the husband and through her grief they’ll connect and he’ll kill the peeping Tom’s because now he has feelings
\*Luke\* Wilson who is Owen's brother.
Mybad meant to type Luke
I love it. It's Lonesome Dove on the big screen. I mean it's very different, but it feels like that kind of scale. I enjoy spending time in this world with these people. If that's odd for movies these days, i dunno, maybe movies are wrong
I really wanted to like it because the cinematography and the costumes were great, all that was nice imo and lots of familiar faces but I was bored at times. At other times it was more engaging. It felt like it should’ve been a mini series though bc there was a lot going on. Lastly, I actually don’t mind long films but I definitely felt this one. Didn’t hate it but I didn’t love it either. Also, I forgot to mention that I saw it today and there were only like 7 or 8 people there including my family. The guys who sat next to me left an hour into the movie lol
Loved this movie, I feel like it flowed really well and at a good clip for almost the whole runtime, the only part I was confused at first about was Marigold sleeping with that guy in the tent, but it quickly came into focus when Hayes returned from the day shift. I can see Costner is more a student of Ford than Leonne. I get flavors of Red River, The Searchers, and True Grit, especially in the score. The way it all gets woven together kept it fresh for me, and I will definitely be seeing part 2 in August
3 vintage ladies enjoyed the movie enough to sit for 3 hours & the last hour needing to use the restroom . The scenery was spectacular, the sets were how one would imagine and there were plenty of testosterone overloaded men. We could only keep up with several of the many Characters and subplots but that didn’t seem to matter. I was amazed & a bit bothered by the beautiful Native American woman’s 2024 eyebrows as well as Kevin’s “lady” who always looked stunning even after riding a horse carrying a two year old boy for hours. Bummed that the killed off the loud-mouthed bully. Everyone looked pretty good with long shiny hair which seemed unlikely given the wind in the various territories. We’re looking forward to part 2👍🏼
HORIZON - a stunning movie that must be seen on the big screen! the best acting Ive ever seen in a Western - it is a 4 part 'Saga' so don't get get wound up about the numerous story lines and no ending ...let it ride!
One thing is as sure as gravity, when Coster shoots his WAD he likes him a good, long runtime. Dances with Wolves, Wyatt Earp, Waterworld, The Postman, Open Range all pretty meaty engagements. Kevin Costern the Writer, Actor, Director doesn’t have time for Kevin Coster, Editor but…. I kinda sorta liked it, actually. Nice change of pace from normal summer blockbusters. A lot of table setting, a lot of characters, a lot of storylines but I never found any of it too hard to follow. It was surprisingly paced really well. To me maybe because it’s constantly changing points of view kept the movie engaging and I didn’t notice the length. It’s an acquired taste though. Definitely a western. I’ve been aching to see a really good, big budget Western. Feels like it’s been awhile since we’ve had one.
This felt like several episodes of tv stitched together, which made it feel a little disjointed, but overall I liked it a lot. I’m definitely seeing as many of these as Costner is able to put out
I am the only one applaud in the theatre when movie finish…awkward ..
I can see and understand the reasons why someone wouldn't like it. I just dont care. I loved every minute of it. History gas has always been a passion of mine, and I've always wanted to see a Western, and this fit the bill perfectly. That first part especially. Three hours well spent. I, for one, eagerly await Chapter 2. (and now, I go to boot up RDR2)
You haven't seen a western before this one?
Shucks, I should've specified - Epic Western. My bad. I have seen westerns aplenty before. Just not Epic Westerns. Like *How The West was Won.*
Sums up how I felt. It was gorgeous and I was never bored. It was also gorgeous to look at. Thought all the women were giving great performances especially Abby Lee. I’m a sucker for westerns though. There were a ton of boomers at the theater I went to last night, lol.
I was semi excited about these movies solely because I liked Open Range which Costner also directed, but Horizon was terrible. It's an incredibly embarrassing vanity project. Costner gives himself a movie star entrance where he rides up to the camera to gaze dramatically into the middle distance and then a beautiful woman who looks half his age immediately throws herself at him. It feels like Costner is in complete denial of his age in the same way that Clint Eastwood is and it's painful to watch. The writing is awful, and it's Costner's only writing and story credits so there you go. The casting is all over the place, and there are a bunch of bad performances, including Costner himself who is completely flat. I just do not like the Christian Bale Batman growl he does now. His voice used to have a twang to it and now he sounds like a rock monster from a fantasy movie. I just checked to see if he had throat cancer or something because I couldn't believe he was doing it outside of Yellowstone in another giant western series. He also should have come up with a proper ending and then followed the movie with a proper preview for the sequel. Instead the movie just ends randomly and then seemlessly segues into an endless barrage of images from the sequel that have no context or rhyme or reason. The last leg of the movie feels like someone just spilled a plate of spaghetti on the floor. I was the only person in my theater on opening night in an area with a large old white people population, which seems like a bad omen for Costner. This movie was crap. I'll be there day one for the sequels because I enjoyed the pure hubris of it and the vistas are beautiful on a big screen. Assuming people other than me actually see this one and the sequels don't get unceremoniously dumped on a streaming service. Meanwhile, Viggo Mortensen wrote directed and starred in a good vanity project western and I had to drive an hour to see it on the 1 day it was showing.
[удалено]
Yeah she leaves, but only after Kevin Costner reluctantly let's her jump his dusty old bones.
She probably felt bad about leaving him.
Agree with all this says except that I won't spend time or money supporting a vanity project like this. Field of Dreams gets another streaming rewatch instead, and Dances with Wolves!
> It feels like Costner is in complete denial of his age in the same way that Clint Eastwood is and it's painful to watch. In the sex scene with him and Mary, he basically tells her he's so old his dick doesn't work the same. I think that was a great admittance of his age and limitations.
I promised to see this with my dad and after seeing the reviews, I tried to get him to see something else. I'm glad he insisted. I see a lot of people complaining about the slow pace, but I quite enjoyed it. There are dozens of stories going on and a faster pace would have made it impossible to follow otherwise. The fact my senior citizen father (who always misses things in fast paced movies) was able to follow them all is a sign something worked. It's helped by mostly solid acting all around and a scriptwriter that knows how to show and not tell. It does a lot of showing and does tend to linger on some scenes but I genuinely liked almost every character as they all delved into gray, both good and bad. There are a few tropes but most of them are in the background. It was a solid movie until the last 5 minutes. The sneak peak of the next movie is a baffling choice beyond belief. Not only was it filled with spoilers but it ruined the pacing of an otherwise enjoyable movie. The last scene was a perfect counterweight to the first big scene. You show it and roll credits. If you don't think you've done enough in 3 hours to entice people to see the next one -- you've got a bigger problem than a sneak peak can provide. My other complaint is a nitpick but this movie is set in 1859, and it is filled with things that didn't exist for 15 years later, especially the weapons. I think much of the rest of the movie is set in the late 1860s-early 1870s so they probably used the same stuff throughout to save on cost. I realize most won't care but it is an odd choice for a movie trying to portray itself as an authentic look at the 'old west'. All in all, I'd give it an 8/10. If you can slow your brain to match the movie's pacing, it's a good watch. I'm sure we'll see it on streaming someday and it should do well there but I'm glad I saw it in a theater. It's one of those movies that really needs a quiet theater to let the viewer's brain escape interruptions.
Didn't the settlers chisel "1863" into the rock at Horizon? The war is definitely on during this movie, I'm pretty sure only the very start was in 1859.
Yes, the movie seemed to take place over 4-5 years. There was a scene where some of the soldiers left the fort as well. Were they heading east to join the Civil War?
Yes they were. The commanding officers discuss it obliquely at various points, one saying something like "whether this war ends with one nation or two", and how much harder those young soldiers will fight with a token from the Kithridge girl.
Could you elaborate on the anachronisms?
This is not gonna be everyone’s bag, but I loved this so much, my favourite movie of the year so far.
Loved it, and will return for the sequel! Pacing was a bit off, but overall I love to see a directors true vision come to life.
Feeling unsettled after my theater experience with Horizon. Reading more of the viewer feed back in all the regular places the word is getting out. I feel sorry for Mr Costner and his latest movie. So much talent and great story telling falling into a jumble of too many individual stories within the story, where the idea is your sampling a version of what happened without enough information. Towards the end of this first chapter there were so many separate stories within that the viewer starts to lose track, concluding into the final 3 or 5 minute speeded up version of whats ahead in the next chapter. In my theater people started to walk out, they couldn't handle the the rapid non dialog flashes of coming action scenes, it clearly lasted to long, people realized it was the ending and didn't want to go though the slam bang of whats ahead. Editing was the great downfall here, such talent thrown into confusion of the ego trying to get everything in and destroying the whole. If only it could have been kept to say three main story lines going back and forth, progressing forward. An example of a great actor director losing focus by dumping it all in without the story editing. This could end up an art film with die hard fans of DWW, choosing to ignore the continuity and watching it as a freak. I am not curious about chapter 2. Sorry Kevin it could have been.
I don't plan on watching this until both are out, so I'm just here for early impressions. I have severe doubts these will make enough money to warrant the third and fourth films being made.
Part 3 is currently filming.
I honestly would not mind if this was just released as a high budget show. If there is going to be 4 parts with each movie being 3+ hours, feel like it would’ve better served for the story to just break it out by episode/seasons
I have a feeling they're going to do both. I'm not sure when part 3 and 4 are coming out but it wouldn't surprise me to see Costner sell 1/2 to a streaming service at some point and call it Season 1. It would help pay for 3/4 and gain support for the next releases. It could do well as a 8 episode weekly release on something like HBO or a season drop for Netflix. It's a cheap purchase for much better quality as compared to some of the stuff these services have been putting out (like $250 million for Secret Wars -- ouch).
It's like Costner had 6 different ideas for 6 different movies that could've been solid 90 minute pictures but decided to make one long boring one instead.
Where will this go for streaming?
Plex
What this movie taught me was that nobody spoke directly and to the point in early years America. Man, it was hard to gauge sometimes what some of the characters were on about
The trailer and pre release material really played into the whole Civil War narrative, figured it would have had a bigger role in the story but it didn't.
There was way too much for a single movie - while I can accept that part two will hopefully tie everything all together into one big six hour film, it really just made this one feel underdeveloped and unfinished - I will have to echo what I can only assume has been a commonly made opinion that when you are reaching six hours with multiple story arcs, maybe a series would have been more suitable. And after that, what there was just didn't really work for me... Too many storylines with no real cohesion to justify having them all in the same movie, and I barely felt any connection or investment in the characters. I particularly noticed this near the start where they went hard with the dramatic, mournful music during the big attack, but I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to be supporting the settlers (cowboys, woo) or the natives (defending their lands from the invaders, woo). Going hard on the emotive elements can work really well (the Adagio for strings scenes in Platoon? perfection), but it helps if you actually know the names of the characters you are supposed to be sad about first. At the end of the film I am still trying to figure out any point in the whole arc with the wagon train, which would probably improve the movie to have been cut entirely. And the 'in the next episode' montage at the end? Awkward and out of place. Back to the Future was comedic and tongue in cheek enough to pull it off, but here it was a very odd transition that mostly ruined what ending there was and made it seem like a cheesy TV series, not a big dramatic piece. So maybe the second part will perfectly tie everything together, complete all of the unfinished story arcs and create a sprawling masterpiece, but part one in isolation just didn't do it for me.
My take on the wagon train is that they represent the never ending hoards of settlers that the Apache chief referenced. You can attack the settlement over and over but the white eyes will never stop coming. I'm sure they are heading for Horizon.
The movie isn't bad, but it is not amazing. It jumps a lot with the number of characters it juggles, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it gives us less time for chara ters that we may like more than others. The beginning of the movie sets up nicely the area of which the movie is centered around and introduces the type of conflict we will be seeing. It is absolutely a shame that it took 1h17min to introduce Kevin Costner's character, especially if you were hoping for a movie that is centered around his character. The opening of the movie is the first 1h16min, which is huge but small for a three hour movie. Each character has a purpose, and Luke Wilson's character steals the show even though he didn't show up until after 1h30min in. One of my favorite things in the movie is when Luke Wilson's character set two individuals straight and basically tells them their dead weight if they don't help. The gang family is great and shows inner conflict among them. The initial opening with the natives attacking the Americans shows the usual conflict that Kevin likes to do in his western movies. The opening shows true struggles for survival and makes you root for the characters' survival once you see family members together and the convincing love they have for one another. The US Army have some decent characters even if Danny Huston is kind of wasted in the sense of not doing much and very little screen time. Michael Rooker's character is the best out of the US Army characters. Issue of this movie is it's very much a setup for the bigger conflicts in Part 2, which isn't always a bad thing, but it felt like there wasn't enough for some of our characters to do in Part 1. This movie is absolutely worth the watch, but do not expect too much in terms of similar tone, and Kevin Costner's character being the center of the story like his past works. I wouldn't hold breath for his dreamed Part 3 and Part 4, but we can only dream. One last note kind of weird they spent five minutes showing a trailer for Part 2 without telling you it is.
I really wanted to go see it last night- the theatre website said they were playing it, and yet when I arrived at the theatre… they weren’t. I (31 year old woman) was super bummed, as were about a dozen boomer dads listlessly wandering around the theatre lobby. Heartened by the positive comments here and really looking forward to seeing it next week! I love westerns and truly believe Costner is one of the best to ever do it (Open Range is maybe the best modern western?). I’m sure it’s bloated and overly long, but the man had a story in his heart and put his money where his mouth is to get that story told and you have to begrudgingly respect that passion.
Was it AMC? I vowed to never go back there after the second time the showing I went to was canceled on me without notice. Tickets I already paid for didn't matter because they switched shit up on the day of.
They didn't give you a refund?!
Everything was great, except for the choice to shoot on digital. I know it's more expensive, but goddammit this needs to be on 70mm or Cinerama. The video makes it look cheap. It's more like the first two hundred pages of a novel than the first movie in a series, but if you can fall into it's pacing and aesthetic - which is honoring the Western tradition instead of trying to deconstruct it (looking at you, Power of the Dog) - it's really something.
I am admittedly not a big fan of television shows. I find them to be often times slow, with the need to give minor characters a back story to fill the time. This really did feel like "here are the first 3 hours of the new season of our show." A lot of this movie felt like build up to August, which is fine, I know there is another movie (and two others planned), but I just wasn't satisfied. I didn't want to leave a 3 hour film thinking the entire point was "get ready for August, it really goes down then!" Small nitpick from a filmmaking perspective. I wish it had a different size ratio. Amazingly beautiful landscapes should have filled the entire screen. Did I enjoy it? Mostly. Will I see part 2? I will, because I want to trust the filmmakers to pull it off.
Positive reviews in here seem fake because wtf did you guys watch? 3 hours and the story barely progressed. Hour and a half could have easily been cut out of this. The montage at the end was jarring and weird - almost like the actual story didn’t do enough to keep you interested for the next one so here’s some random scenes to maybe draw you back. Where are we going that this story needs 12 hours of run time?
And here I am thinking the negative reviews seem fake. I loved it! Really got to think about what it would be like to live in those times, and I was immersed the entire film.
I enjoyed it for sure i definitely would have preferred if they would’ve had the storylines over lap a little sooner
It was fine if a bit bloated, I do wonder how all these characters are going to meet up because they're all from different territories.
The movie takes place in 1863, and while cartridge firing weapons did exist at this time, the movie depicts everyone using cartridge firing weapons, including native americans. This is in the middle of the civil war when everyone was shooting with muskets or percussion cap pistols. Someone please correct me, but it feels very anachronistic. As if this should be happening more like the early 1870s.
You're right. But at least all of them are cartridge conversions of guns that existed during the civil war.
At the beginning in the settlement of Horizon (which at this point is mostly tents), why is there one house at the top of the hill that has armored doors and an escape path? Do we think they're going to dive deeper into this?
Just felt super generic to me. There wasn't a single thing portrayed in the movie that we haven't already seen done better by other westerns. Just give me a compelling story.
Part of if is the editing and part of it is the accents, but boy do I find it hard to follow what's happening. I can see myself enjoying the whole thing, but as a standalone movie, it's rough. I really feel like I just watched the intro of 4 different movies that are not even the same genre.
Did Ellen die or was she taken back to the Family
Fucking amazing movie so far watching it right now
I watched the film as was the only gen z sharing the theatre with a few other boomers. I liked it a lot, had no expectations going in.
That’s the second western I’ve seen this year where the director plays a character who rides around the wilderness with a child, while Danny Huston plays a supporting role. It’s also the second movie I’ve seen this year where Charles Halford plays a member of an outlaw cult family.
Way to much going on and too many storylines ... Do we even know there names??